The whole "Joe the Plumber" case epitomizes the looney left (which includes the Obama campaign). They attack any person or institution that sheds some much needed light on Obama's real agenda. A plumber in Ohio, who said his name is Joe, asked Obama essentially this: If I become a small-businessman making over $250,000 a year, are you going to take more of my income and give it to other people? Part of Obama's response was that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody. McCain, of course, jumped on Obama's socialist comment big-time and it got a lot of play in the media.

The looney left's response? Joe is not a plumber (because he doesn't have a license). Joe only makes $40,000 per year so he would actually be helped by Obama (never mind all those who do make over $250,000). Joe is behind on paying his state taxes (he owes about $1200). Joe was a plant by the McCain campaign (not substantiated; if so, so what?). Joe is only his middle name (I'm not kidding; someone felt this needed to be pointed out).

They seem to be saying that Joe is unqualified to ask such a question so Obama's unguarded response should not count. Apparently it's okay for debate moderators to ask hypothetical questions, but not the average Joe.

Joe the Plumber is not running for president. Barack Obama is. So the spotlight should be on Obama, not on Joe the Plumber. In the context in which it was made Obama's comment that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody clearly reveals his socialist bent. While spreading the wealth around is a desirable result of capitalism, it is not guaranteed on an individual basis; it is linked to the extent of an individual's contribution. Capitalism provides equality of opportunity; socialism provides equality of outcome (everyone ends up poor).

Obama wants to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. If that sounds admirable to you, you're a socialist.

---

I heard a man (didn't catch his name) on television yesterday say that President-Elect Barack Obama is going to create thousands of jobs for people to "weatherize" houses. He didn't say how Obama would perform the magic of creating demand for house weatherizing that apparently does not exist now. Private businesses would be providing those services if the demand existed.

A real job is an activity that adds to the national wealth. That is, it produces something of real value, something people want and are willing to pay for out of their own pockets. A job "created" by the government obviously does not add that kind of value; it is just another form of public welfare. Apparently, what Obama has in mind is hiring hordes of people to knock on our doors and tell us that they can weatherize our houses for some heavily subsidized price, or perhaps for free.

He apparently believes that the only reason people aren't weatherizing their houses on their own is that they can't afford it. This is not necessarily true. For the most part, weatherizing a house means sealing air leaks to make it less expensive to heat or cool. There is a downside to living in an airtight house; it can cause health problems and possibly suffocation. Why make your house airtight and then have to open a window to get fresh air to breathe?

Consider your car. It is designed to transport four or more people in a relatively confined space. It is relatively airtight for reasons other than heating and cooling. So you often have to slightly open a window or two to get needed fresh air, or you use the provided settings on your car's HVAC system to allow fresh air to pass through your car.

Houses aren't as confined as cars but you probably spend more time in your house than in your car. My house isn't even close to being airtight -- I can see light shining through the cracks around my doors -- but it starts to feel stuffy after a few hours inside.

Guidelines for Obama and his minions: Breathing fresh air good; stuffy house bad. Free market good; central planning bad.

---

The present leaders of our country seem to want to turn us into an entitlement society. They feel that everyone is entitled to food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, etc. They don't see any connection between the availability of these goods and services and the amount of individual effort expended in producing or acquiring them. It's almost as if they think all these things will magically appear.

I know that the problem with an entitlement society is that it lessens the incentive to produce. This is true for individuals and for companies. Individuals will work less when all their basic needs are guaranteed. Companies will fail when profit is outlawed and price controls are imposed. The government will have to take over production of all goods and services and force people to work. Black markets will develop. Utopia? I don't think so.

Some people think an entitlement society, or socialism, is a good thing and others think it is a bad thing. So how do we determine who is right? We need a test case. And I propose that we use Afghanistan for that test case. We are already in the process of nation building over there so it would be relatively easy to turn it into a testbed for an entitlement society. And we can't do much harm to the Afghans if the experiment doesn't work because they're already living in poverty.

I'm not proposing that we give them goods or money -- just limited services. That is, we would just send them a bunch of progressives to establish their government and run it as a closed system; no further free help from the outside. If outside goods and services are needed they will have to be purchased with inside goods and services. This entitlement society experiment will have to succeed or fail on its own.

This new government would likely decree right away that:

• Every village have a modern, full-service hospital that will provide free medical-care
• Every village have modern schools for both boys and girls
• Every city have a top-notch tuition-free university
• Transportation and communications systems be modernized
• Every home have access to electrical power
• Every family have a nice modern home
• Everyone have sufficient food and clothing

Then we could watch it unfold (it would be required that the world news media be allowed to observe and report). Right away the government would begin to realize that the hard part is the implementation. Something can't be supplied that isn't produced. If nobody works nothing will be produced. So how can they convince the people to work hard to build or produce all this when they have just been told that they are entitled to it, and when they probably aren't convinced they need or want it? The options are persuasion or force.

The government could persuade by offering workers titles and privileges that set them apart from the non-workers, but this conflicts with the progressives' belief that everyone should be equal. The government could persuade by giving the workers money in proportion to the amount of work they do, but that smacks of capitalism which progressives dislike. Some workers might be persuaded based on what they see as the merits of this new entitlement society, but probably not enough. That leaves force.

In order to make this work the government will eventually have to assign duties to everyone and take steps to ensure that the duties are performed. When it does it has, in essence, put in place a system that requires people to work for what they get. But not a very good one. When people are forced to work they aren't going to produce as much as those working voluntarily for money.

As I said above, I know that such an experiment will fail. But I also know that the progressives would still refuse to admit that it was due to bad policy. They would likely claim that the Afghans would be far worse off without their leadership.

Being entitled to something that doesn't exist is meaningless. If something is to exist someone has to produce it. If something is produced someone has to work. If work is done someone has to be forced or compensated. What do you prefer? Slave labor or capitalism?

---